434 FEDERAL REPORTER. �appear that, to contract witb competing express companies that each should have each day room sufScient to carry nearly double the average daily haul, for ail parties, over the road of express matter, if the contract on the part of the rail- road was actually so carried out as to sequester from the use of ail others the room engaged to each, might soon and seri- ously trench upon the other intereats and duties of the rail- road. Nor does the suggestion that the plaintiff is in pos- session of the express business, and therefore in no situation to complain, strike me with force in the direction intended. On the contrary, in my judgment the admitted facts in refer- ence to the plaintiJBf's present relations to the express busi- ness, along the lines of defendants' roads, tend rather to chal- lenge criticism of the proposition, that, by these contracts with the Pacific Express Company, these railroads are pursu- ing a policy to encourage competition in the carriage of ex- press matter, so that the wants of the public can be met at cheaper rates than those which have heretofore prevailed. �Not denying or questioning the right of the railroad to con- tract with any express company for adequate room daily for such an amount of express matter as it actually bas from day to day, so long as such contract does not disable such railroad from granting equal daily facilities to any other express company soliciting the same accommodations on the same terms, and so long as ail of such contracts shall not disable such roads from furnishing adequate accommodations, in their due turn, to other companies or persons doing an express business and soliciting transportation for express matter, I am clearly of opinion that said railroad companies, •wben they do so contract, must so frame their contracts as to adjust the rate of compensation to the number of persons and quantity (and perhaps quality) of matter transported, and to the length of haul, and so as not to discriminate in favor of one or more companies or persons doing an express busi- ness against another or others engaged in a similar business. �As to the amount or rate of compensation, the plaintiff contends that such rates cannot exceed five cents per mile for the transportation of its messensers, and 5U cents per hun- ��� �
